Not really. He's the first choice for me because I like what his issues are and he appears to confront them (reviewal of the Patriot Act, his voting record) rather than ignore them (Kerry's plan to just let the Patriot Act expire, his explaining away of his voting record).

And the Vietnam protest side of Kerry doesn't sit well with me and it never will. Same for Bush and the Air National Guard deal. For someone to sit on a Senate panel and testify that the troops there were baby killers and rapists, yet now claim that he is a 'War Hero', is beneath everything. How many guys would have had his back over there if they knew what he was going to do when he came home? Who's to say that he won't sell out the U.S. in foreign affairs the same way?

No politician can be fully trusted. But of the three, oops, four, I think Edwards can be trusted the most. Yes he's a lawyer, but that's not all bad, but maybe that's because I aspire to be a lawyer. He helped a lot of families, helped a lot of kids. He's no stranger to tragedy, he's had to bury one of his own children. He did not grow up privileged, as the other two did (I don't know how Nader grew up).

As for Nader, his entry hurts the Democrats. They'll lose the fringe left that voted for him last time. I think they'll vote for him again, despite what the DNC says about them voting for Kerry instead because Nader has no party affiliation. His entrance doesn't hurt Edwards as bad, as I think it may actually keep the fringe left from voting for Kerry in some of the primaries today since they already know their guy is in. And in the November election, should Edwards become the nominee, again it won't hurt as bad because Edwards will attract more independants to offset the Nader-effect.

But like I've said all along, the DNC and the Clintons don't want Edwards because he ruins the Hillary for Prez in '08 blueprint. If Edwards shows well today and picks up some states, the DNC should seriously consider ditching The Clintons, Pelosi, ect., and try to move the party back to the center.

Furthermore, I'll never support a candidate that had anything to do with the insurance companies killing the American muscle car.

My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered. But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: Â³They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to rep

A quick read-through of that letter tells me the guy is a right-wing kook.

1) There *were* serious atrocities in Vietnam. Guess this guy's never heard of [link=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/12/blade/]Tiger Force[/link], not to mention My Lai.

2) The National Guard was definitely a way to avoid going to Vietnam. Dubya even said that he didn't want to go 'Nam, and the alternatives were Canada, blowing his earsdrums out with a shotgun, or the Guard.

3) There are NO MORE POWs! Stop cruelly toying with the feelings of the families of the dead. And it would have been moronic not to normalize relations. Kerry does not differ from John McCain, who spent a good portion of his life as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, on this matter.

4) I could continue to gut this letter, but it's not worth my time. Next time post something that takes some effort to disembowel.

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

Colin Powell

From the NY Times:

McCain Fights Old Foe Who Now Fights Kerry

February 14, 2004

New York Times
by Michael Janofsky

Washington, DC -

Senator John McCain came to the defense of a fellow Vietnam War veteran, Senator John Kerry, on Friday by attacking the credibility of a North Carolina veteran who has dedicated himself to defeating Mr. Kerry in his campaign for president.

Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, called the man, Ted Sampley, "one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter."

Mr. Sampley, a businessman from Kinston, N.C., has gained some attention in recent days for operating a Web site devoted to attacking Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, for his opposition to the war in Vietnam after his military service. The Web site, www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com, includes pictures from the 1970's showing Mr. Kerry at antiwar protests. One shows Mr. Kerry at a rally, sitting several rows behind Jane Fonda, who was so outspoken against the war that she was labeled a Communist by her political opponents.

In response to Mr. McCain's remarks about him, Mr. Sampley said in a telephone interview: "It's not the first time he said that. That's his opinion. It's unbecoming of a senator to say things like that, but I'm fair game just like he is."

In 1993, Mr. Sampley was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to 180 days' probation for attacking a legislative aide to Mr. McCain.

A self-proclaimed champion for veterans' rights, Mr. Sampley has been criticizing Mr. Kerry for much the same reason he made Mr. McCain a target for years: Neither man, Mr. Sampley contends, has done enough to investigate his claim that American servicemen were left behind in Vietnam after the war.

Mr. Sampley once called Mr. McCain, who was held captive for five years in North Vietnam, "the Manchurian Candidate," a reference to a 1962 film in which a Communist-controlled candidate nearly becomes his party's candidate for president.

In a recent statement posted on his Web site, Mr. Sampley made a similar suggestion, saying: "I have personally dealt with John Kerry on the issue of U.S. P.O.W.s left behind in Vietnam. Kerry is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. Many Vietnam vets have been duped into thinking Kerry is their friend. He is not. To us, he is `Hanoi John.' "

In defending Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain - who has campaigned for President Bush this year - said of Mr. Sampley: "I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans."

Mr. Sampley is not the only person actively seeking to discredit Mr. Kerry. In recent days, a picture showing Mr. Kerry at a podium with Ms. Fonda has circulated on the Internet. But the picture is a hoax, according to the photo agency that owns the original, Corbis. In the original photo, Mr. Kerry is alone at the podium.

EDIT:

I also heard on the news that the Bush-Cheney campaign has spent between 39 and 46 million dollars thus far. Anyone have any follow-up/additional info?

Anyone have any polling info for today's primaries? I didn't find anything. Here's something about Cali:

Kerry Leads Edwards Handily in California

By Michael Finnegan Times Staff Writer

A week before California's Democratic presidential primary, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) leads North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) by a lopsided 56% to 24% among the state's likely voters in the race, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll?

Beyond next week's election, the survey found California to be decidedly unfriendly territory for President Bush (news - web sites) in November. Just over half of California voters disapprove of his job performance. In potential matchups, Kerry and Edwards each finish well ahead of the Republican president ? in Kerry's case by a solid 13 points?

Following the pattern set in other states, Kerry's support in the primary cuts across a broad range of demographic groups. He wins majorities of men, women, liberals, moderates, Latinos, union members and senior citizens, among others.

You underestimate the negative sentiment among Vietnam Veterans for John Kerry. A great many of them loathe the man. I'm a member of the VFW here, and veterans don't like the guy.

He's a hypocrite.

Kerry was relying upon somewhat questionable second-hand information to make sweeping generalizations about the actions of our soldiers in Vietnam. He was doing so in protest as he saw the war as unjustified (which is fine if he felt the war was unjust), but he was making such assertions in an unsubstantiated manner for political gain for his cause. Therefore, he dishonored himself and his fellow Vietnam Veterans.

It shows Kerry's poor character that he wants to label these Veterans his 'Band of Brothers' now when he was accusing them of war crimes back in the 1970's. Since Kerry brought the whole Vietnam situation up as part of his campaign while he and the DNC continually mislabel Bush and deride the National Guard, it is only fair that his indesputable record be brought up. His actions then show a pattern of behavior and a reluctance to assure a proper level of national defense and intelligence based upon his voting record. I tend to believe that it is his Vietnam experience that has made him somewhat 'gun-shy' (pardon the pun) as exemplified in his voting record on defense issues.

Here is the substantive information that Kerry was misinformed about the Vietnam War:

Kerry relied upon phonies and wannabes for support. His prominence has allowed current phonies and wannabes to continue the unsubstantiated allegations made all those years ago and which Kerry appears to condone even today. For example:

Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) credentials, Kerry's original organization, along with his friends, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being an officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael Harbert, another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

Frank Dux: He charged many recognizable Vietnam vets with using techniques bordering on war crimes. Dux was a fraud and non Vietnam Veteran.

Yoshia K. Chee claimed we in Vietnam routinely resorted to the most hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated prisoners. He was a phony.

Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the military.

The Senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like: K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress. He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear. Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintained a kill quota of fifty bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in Vietnam, in Phoenix, or had any first hand information. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination training."

Source: The Weekly Standard

This will be all too easy for the GOP to show him as a wiffle-waffler not only on this, but on a great many substantive issues (for NAFTA, then against NAFTA; for the Iraq war, then votes against supporting our troops; says he supports traditional marriage; votes against the DOMA). This is not even including how anti-national defense he was during the 80's in the US Senate, nor his continued support of defense cutbacks, nor his continued support of intelligence cutbacks.

Do you guys really think that in this critical time of national security that the American people are going to choose a soft on defense, wiffle-waffler?

-And I STILL like Gephardt! He was a fellow NU alum, and I said I liked him or would be happy with him, but I wasn't sure. This is a half-truth.

Then, when Clark entered, you supported him for a while.. (which I remember you claiming he was the only one who could trump Bush's foreign policy perception)

-Ok, here is some truth. I was an early Clark supporter, electability has always been important to me, and at the time, before he was a candidate and then until say December, I liked Clark. He started showing he wasn't quite politically savy enough to pull this thing off. But I DISTINCTLY remember rooting for Edwards before the first primary, because I had been leaning towards him, and also because Clark wasn't competing there. But my support for him happened to wane aroudn the time Dean started taking off...

However, around Dec, you firmly became a Dean supporter (remember when you came in here and e-celebrated that Gore's endorsement was the best thing ever?), and stayed Dean for a long time.

This is a bold faced lie. I did NOT celebrate Gore's endorsement, I just explained why I thought he did it. OK, it is a mistake on your part rather than lying, but I NEVER FAVORED DEAN. EVER.

What you are remembering is me DEFENDING DEAN, because I liked him, (and I like him even more lately), liked his energy, and because at that point it seemed more than likely that Dean would win. And I certainly liked him more than Bush, so at that time I was just defending Dean in practice of a Dean v. Bush matchup, since I could live with Dean as the nominee, just like I can live with Kerry.

Only recently, have you jumped to Edwards. (in fact, didn't we agree back in Dec, that Edwards was charismatic, but he needed to finish his first term, and he should run in 8 years?)

In my head I supported Clark and then interest began waning and then before the primary I jumped on the Edwards bandwagon, that's it. Yeah, I stil think that were circumstances different, that would have been a good plan. But I think he's got a shot and I like him best, and I have preferred Edwards in every single primary election or caucus. I contributed to the Edwards campaign. So I went from supporting Clark to contributing to the Edward campaign. I changed me mind before the primary started.

I have been following this campaign with the rest of you for th better part of the last year. We have discussed the several democratic candidates and I weighed in on them. I have been honest with who I have been leaning towards, and I don't care for these charecterizations.

-I worked for a Republican Congressman, and encouraged my parents to vote for him. I would vote for a Republican, heck, I supported Arnold over all the other recallers, and there are plenty of Republicans I could vote for if given the opportunity.

The reason, Shane, I am not voting Republican is because the choice they give is Bush. That's it. Bush, compared with ANY of the Democratic candidates, isn't going to promote the values and the principles I think are most important. He's been a far-right-winger who misled this country when he ran as a moderate, and again when he declared a war of choice on Iraq, diverting needed resources from the war on terror. He's further divided this nation and has done little to nothing to act as President for the other 50% of the country. And he's going to continue to do long term damage to this country.

And if John Kerry is the nominee, I will support him 100%. The more I read about him the more I like him.

Because I have liberal values and because the Democratic Party has a better chance of accomplishing what I want accomplished than the Republicans. Is that really something you have to ask me? What is your real question or agenda here?

Is it really that difficult to understand? I mean, MOST people tend to vote for one side or the other, with some consistency. I am willing to vote for people who are Republican, but weighing my options every Democratic Candidate comes out more favorable than Bush.

Heck, ideologically, I probably have more in common with Sharpton or Kuccinich than Edwards or Kerry.

TripleB:Mostly that the people that support Nader are going to see their freak fringe left wing extremist views reflected in John Kerry's own character. THe result is the anti-war protestors, freak enviromentalists, gay marriage advocates, etc will not need to go for Ralph Nader advocating their views when Kerry will do it for them.

As a member of the "freak fringe left wing extremist" wing of the Democratic Party, I will tell you that John Kerry is no Ralph Nader. Nader is much more liberal and much more consistently liberal than Kerry, and I would be more satisfied with him than Kerry.

Gonk:Because since Nixon everyone wants to elect an 'outsider' -- a governor. Which is a rediculous reason since the first thing that happens to the political outsider is that they are absorbed by Washington. In the end the 'executive experience' of running a state is an insufficient resume compared to active Washington experience.

That's why, IMO, a ticket should have a governor and a senator or representative.

Four out of the five last presidents had only governorships prior to holding office, and none of them are equally respected on both sides of the political spectrum as past presidents such as JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt and Wilson.

Not to be nit-picky or anything, but Woodrow Wilson was a governor before he became President. Granted, he was a very knowledgeable man, so it might not have made much of a difference when it came to foreign affairs.

Ditto for both Roosevelts.

DM: Good point. In 2000 though, it was different. Everyone expected GWB to be a different candidate than he turned out to be -- perhaps even GWB himself.

Nader can't surely think Kerry would have pushed for a constitutional amendment on Gay Marriage.

I think that the reason why Nader garnered so much support in 2000 was because the liberal base of the Democratic Party was disenchanted with President Clinton and his heir apparent, VP Gore. Both of those men were centrist New Democrats who had been accused of betraying Democratic principles. That's why so many Democrats defected to Nader in 2000. (I would have too, if I could've voted back then.) But 2004 is different, because 1) We've all seen the true (ugly) face of George W. Bush, and 2) Sen. John Kerry is nowhere near as centrist as Al Gore.

(Btw, it's interesting to note that in the days preceding the election, Naderites, fearing that Gore would lose to Bush in a close election - before, all the liberals thought Gore would kill Bush easily - were already beginning to abandon Nader and grudgingly vote for Gore to block Bush. So the 2.7% that Nader got was actually a deflated portrait of his actual support nationwide.)

Mr44:Where are the finances for this start up going to come from?

I don't presume to speak for Senator Edwards, but to me the answer seems simple: The revenue will come from the repeal of part of President Bush's tax cut.

DeathStar1977:Anyone know where the Green party stands at this point? Do they have a nominee-in-waiting, so to speak?

[link=http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_22_04.html]From the Green Party website[/link]

Darth Mischievous:Kerry was relying upon somewhat questionable second-hand information to make sweeping generalizations about the actions of our soldiers in Vietnam.

DM, regardless of what Kerry said or didn't say, do you deny that there were atrocities and war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War?

This will be all too easy for the GOP to show him as a wiffle-waffler not only on this, but on a great many substantive issues (for NAFTA, then against NAFTA; for the Iraq war, then votes against supporting our troops; says he supports traditional marriage; votes against the DOMA).

I'm not going to speak for Senator Kerry, but as I understand it he's a very thoughtful and complex man, and has a great appreciation of the nuances of every issue. Do you realize that he might have had a rea

Looks like the courts in Massachusetts are earning their pay this year..

BOSTON, Feb. 24 ? A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked elections in Boston this fall for 17 state House seats, saying a redistricting map approved by lawmakers in 2001 deprived black voters of their constitutional rights.

The judges determined the redistricting plan deprives black voters of equal opportunity ''to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.''

While the map provides white voters with a number of majority white districts, it ''fails to provide African-American voters with a proportional number of majority black districts,'' the judges wrote.

However, the most interesting result of the decision is that it further erodes the pre-concieved ideas about the political parties:

the districts affected by the ruling are held by top House leaders, including House Speaker Thomas Finneran, House Majority Leader Salvatore DiMasi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Eugene O'Flaherty, all Democrats.

Perception wise, isn't the Democratic party supposed to support minorities? I guess politics DO trump everything else...

With the centralized party control broken up by court order, I wonder if this is going to affect the other political situation brewing in Mass..?

As a member of the "freak fringe left wing extremist" wing of the Democratic Party, I will tell you that John Kerry is no Ralph Nader. Nader is much more liberal and much more consistently liberal than Kerry, and I would be more satisfied with him than Kerry

No, but Kerry is much, much more liberal then Al Gore was. So the number of "Feak fring left wing extremist" (btw, congrats, I can picture certain other 'Centrits' taking your line but calling them selves Centrist) that would have voted Dem if Gore had been farther to the left, will be lower. I think only the most dedicated Pro-Ralph Nader supporters will stick with him, with most of the rest respecting Nader, but going with Kerry.

Really I think there were only 3 serious contenders that could possibly have won against Bush: Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry. And Gephardt would have had a harder time of it.

You might say Lieberman would have been able to appeal to moderates. I don't think that's true at all: Lieberman couldn't appeal to anyone, really. He had little presence. He never looked like he ever really believed he was going to win the nomination. I mention how Bush looks uncomfortable: he's practically sitting in a bathrobe talking without a care in a world of relaxation compared to Lieberman. And although Clark might have had a chance, his presidency probably wouldn't have done the Democratic party much good.

I agree DM, I don't understand how they expect to get any independant voters with Kerry. Their opportunity is NOW. Otherwise they'll run Hilary against Jeb Bush in '08, and lose again. I hope Edwards declines the VP nomination and tries to challenge Hilary in '08, but MacAuliffe and the DNC will have none of that.

BTW Obi-Wan McCartney, I've seen your posts in support of Edwards. What I should have said was that I'm the only person supporting Edwards that does not plan to vote for Kerry should he win. My apologies.

If the election were held today, I'd vote Edwards over Bush, but Bush over Kerry, and never would I vote for Nader.

Moon: Getting independant voters will be easy for Kerry. The unfortunate thing is that any reasonable nominee, which Kerry is, will be able to attract those voters. Bush simply has too many weak spots. Even if he nabs Bin Laden, it will have to happen in September or October to make it decisive.

And Bin Laden's capture or a serious gaffe by Kerry are the only two things that could reasonably save this for mr. Bush.

Take Gay Marriage. Most residents of the United States are against the concept of Gay Marriage. But woah there pilgrim, nobody said they support a constitutional amendment backing it. In fact the majority of americans oppose that move. Bush has made his position too extreme -- its ripe to blow up in his face because it allows Kerry, or any Democrat, to simply say 'let the States decide', which is a very mainstream response. In fact, they can benefit now because they can say -- as they can on a number of issues -- 'I'm against this radical proposal'. They don't even have to concentrate on thier own stances. Bush's own policies are radical enough they can gain a ton of mileage just by saying they won't do what Bush is going to do. The president's strategy certainly not going to win many independant or centrist voters.

Bush has drawn his battle lines. They're not well-crafted. Making the case that Kerry is a waffler is a decent attempt, but Kerry's persona isn't going to match that image. Kerry's a tough candidate because he's got few glaring weaknesses, unlike Clinton with his women, and Gore with his lack of charisma. In order to beat Kerry, you have to run on your own record like Reagan would have been able to. Bush can't do that. He could have done it pre-2003, but since Iraq and the ever-suffering economy, he's forced to draw attention away from that. That means either fight negatively, which would cost Bush, or do something like this Gay Marriage debate.

Unfortunately he's taken his stance too far to the right. A constitutional amendment? Come on. The 'institution of marriage' is not something that's as universal as everyone says, first of all (wouldn't you believe marriage was looked upon VERY differently in antiquity-era Greece and Rome), but even if it was the constitution is reserved for issues of oppression and freedom, not defining what is a privilege and what is not. It would have been much better for the President to gamble on another issue. Say, drugs.